ORAL JUDGMENT : - Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The matter is taken up for final disposal with consent of counsel for the parties; at the e of admission.

2. By this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order passed by the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Newasa on 14 -10 -2005 rejecting an application by the petitioner/plaintiff under Order 6, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

3. The petitioner/plaintiff filed a suit against the respondents seeking permanent injunction to restrain the respondents from obstructing the possession the plaintiff over the suit property. During pendency of the suit, temporary injunction was granted in favour of the petitioner/plaintiff and the trial Court also appointed Taluka Inspector of Land Records as a Court Commissioner for measurement of the suit property. The Commissioners report was placed on record and according to the plaintiff, it showed that the defendants had approached upon the suit property. The petitioner, therefore, filed an application king amendment to the plaint, on 5 -1 -2005 by incorporating certain paragraphs as well as prayer clauses. By the proposed amendment, the petitioner wanted to plead that in spite of operation of the injunction order in favour of the petitioner, the defendants illegally encroached upon the suit property. According the proposed amendment, the fact of encroachment was revealed to the petitioner after the Commissioners report was perused. In view of the sequent development, the petitioner pleaded that it was necessary to pass a decree for possession against the defendants.

4. The defendants filed their say to the amendment application and submitted that the report filed by the Taluka Inspector of Land records was a se report. It was then submitted in the say/reply that initially the suit was filed grant of permanent injunction and since by the proposed amendment, the petitioner was seeking possession of the property, the nature of the suit would be completely changed if the amendment application is allowed.

5. The Civil Judge, Junior Division, Newasa, after hearing the counsel for parties, rejected the application filed by the petitioner under Order 6, Rule 17 the Code of Civil Procedure. According to the trial Court, the suit was filed by plaintiff only or permanent injunction and by the proposed amendment, the plaintiff was intending to seek possession of the land, which was encroached n by the defendants. According to the trial Court, the nature of the suit would completely changed, if the amendment application was allowed. The trial court further held that in case the amendment application was allowed, great loss d damage would be caused to the defendants, which could not be compensated terms of money. The trial Court, therefore, rejected the application on the und that it was not tenable.

6. Shri Sapkal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the trial Court was not justified in rejecting the application for permission to amend the plaint. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the plaintiff had filed the suit for permanent injunction against the defendants and during pendency of the suit, the defendants had dispossessed the plaintiff and, therefore, to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, it was necessary to amend the suit and also seek possession of the property from the defendants. It was then canvassed on behalf of the petitioner that the proposed amendment did not change the nature of the suit and no loss or damage would be caused to the defendants in case the amendment application was allowed as according to the plaintiff, the defendants had encroached upon the disputed property during pendency of the suit in spite of grant of temporary injunction in favour of the petitioner. The counsel for the petitioner then relied on a decision in the case of Sampat Kumar vs. Ayya Kannan and another. 2002 S.A.R. Civil 854 to buttress the submission that the proposed amendment did not change the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document